Interference No. 103,586
nonapeptide used by Roberts, BX 26) effective in inhibiting transfer of radiolabeled
farnesyl into ras. This argument, however, relies upon evidence said to be adduced during
the testimony period. When evidence comes to light which in the opinion of a party would
provide basis for a preliminary motion under 37 C.F.R. § 1.633, that party may not simply
raise the matter in its brief at final hearing for the Boards consideration. The party is
required to file a belated preliminary motion. See Interference Practice: Matters Relating to
Belated Preliminary Motions, Chairman’s Notice of October 6, 1992 1144 OG 8 (Nov. 3,
1992). Accordingly, this new evidence is not entitled to consideration.
Lastly, we are not persuaded by Brown’s argument that a positive control, i.e. a
known positive inhibitor, is necessary to confirm the accuracy of the results of the assay.
In our view, reproducibility of the process is demonstrated when the performed assay in the
absence of a test substance produces a substantially consistent level of FT activity.
VIII.
Brown motion to suppress (Issue 6)
In the motion, Brown move to suppress the Fernandes declaration filed in
opposition to the Brown motion 1 and the Manne declaration filed with the Barbacid motion
1. It is Brown’s position that these declarations submitted during the preliminary motion
stage were not submitted into the record in accordance with the rules. 37 C.F.R. §
1.671(e).
The motion to suppress is deemed moot. Barbacid motion 1 was not considered.
-27-
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007